Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 10/31/2012 02:34 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> >You know what the storage team does right?  I can only speak for
>> >myself really, but 26 hours out of the day my head is buried in btrfs.
>> >  Sure I'm subscribed to anaconda devel and fedora devel, which means I
>> >search "btrfs" in my fedora-devel and anaconda folders once a week to
>> >see if somebody is complaining.  We just had a big get together in
>> >August with the storage developers and anaconda people and I don't
>> >remember hearing anything about this.  The anaconda guys are the same
>> >way, they focus on the installer and don't look up unless they have
>> >to.  So when I need something btrfs-y done in Anaconda I go find Dave
>> >or somebody and tell them what I need and we get it worked out
>> >together.  The same thing should be done from the anaconda side when
>> >it comes to changing the basic behavior of storage in Fedora.  Red Hat
>> >employs the top storage developers in the world, why would they not
>> >take advantage of that expertise and experience?  So no it's not
>> >"utter and total bullocks" to expect some sort of heads up when it
>> >comes to storage related changes in anaconda, we're all on the same
>> >team and why would you not talk to each other?  We should be working
>> >to create a well integrated solution for our users that provides the
>> >best possible experience, and the only way we get that done is if we
>> >all work together.  Thanks,
> Preach it, brother.;)
>
> Josef is right, we have rather full days making sure all your data is safe
> & fast, and keeping an eye out for sudden changes in installer behavior
> just isn't always on our radar.  I haven't test-installed F18, personally;
> I've been busy chasing upstream ext4 metadata corruption bugs and the like.
>
> I trusted the feature process to publicize and vet any significant installer
> changes in the fs/storage realm, TBH.

Yeah well I'm not so sure how you can actually expect that of the 
feature process given how utterly broken that is?

For the first you are not obligated to participate in the feature 
process and even if you did what does the process categorize as an 
actual feature?

And I propose that you start lowering your expectations since there is a 
proposal floating with  FESCo where the main think is that they want to 
avoid voting on all features but just decide in details on the bigger 
scope/escalated ones to FESCo. The rest will be acked just by announcing 
them (and again - anyone can escalate it to FESCo)...

JBG